


A Historical Perspective on Edelgard and Political Nonviolence

by octagonsun



Category: Fire Emblem: Fuukasetsugetsu | Fire Emblem: Three Houses
Genre: Essays, Gen, Historical References, Pacifism, Political Philosophy
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2021-01-05
Updated: 2021-01-05
Packaged: 2021-03-15 11:08:24
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,726
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/28562541
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/octagonsun/pseuds/octagonsun
Summary: This essay responds to complaints about the violence involved in Edelgard's war and discusses the moral dimensions of her decision to start a war.
Kudos: 9





	A Historical Perspective on Edelgard and Political Nonviolence

Edelgard's declaration of war is often criticized by appeals for using nonviolent methods of change. This criticism most often looks like the argument that Edelgard should've just talked it out with Rhea and/or Dimitri. It may also manifest as the claim that Edelgard's cause is not urgent enough to justify violence, so only nonviolent means are permissible. Now, before we get into this, I should note that I am a prima facie pacifist for the sake of disclosure.[1]

**Historical Significance of Political Nonviolence**

I'm not going to say it would have been impossible for nonviolent strategies to work. Everything that follows refers to probabilities, viability, and limitations, not unconditional truths. However, the nonviolent argument is ahistorical. While the philosophy of _personal_ nonviolence is old, the philosophy of _political_ nonviolence is modern. Here, I refer to political nonviolence as the belief that nonviolence is an effective means to effect political change. Political nonviolence could not exist until human rights, rule of law, and (to a lesser extent) democracy had become reality. It is only because these conditions are common that we can contemplate nonviolence as a political option. As George Orwell observed:

> It is difficult to see how Gandhi’s methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary.[2]

Freedom of speech, press, and assembly are prerequisite to the formation of a nonviolent movement. Rule of law is necessary so that violent opponents of nonviolent protesters cannot act with impunity - paramilitary groups, members of the government, and lone actors must all be held responsible or expected to be held responsible for attacks on nonviolent protesters. Democracy aids nonviolence since nonviolence relies on popular support, but is neither essential nor sufficient (after all, Socrates was democratically executed). Before these conditions existed, nonviolence was a philosophy of individual conduct - _it was not considered a method to effect political change_. Striking, protesting, and the like are not effective against someone who is willing to kill innocents in the name of preserving their power. (Just as Peasant Revolts were wildly unsuccessful, a Peasant Picket Line is a laughable concept.) It just is not possible to develop a serious philosophy of political nonviolence in the medieval political environment.

On the subject of monarchy, violence is nearly the only form of regime change. Since the monarch controls policy, policy change can only come by changing the monarch's beliefs (usually only possible as an adviser) or by changing the monarch (assassination, coup, invasion, kidnapping, etc). For an outsider to change the monarch's beliefs, the outsider must do more than convince the monarch. The outsider must overcome the (probably hostile) influence of the monarchy's staff. The staff may be advisers, guards, bureaucrats, or messengers. Whatever their station, officials are unlikely to aid anti-establishment causes and are likely to resort to censorship or false reporting. Monarchs are powerful forces for the establishment, but are generally less effective vehicles of reform.

As a corollary, even if the monarch is sympathetic to an anti-establishment message, the monarch must change the moods of all their enforcers. That is an enormous challenge logistically, legally, and politically, even for a monarch. Monarchy is not prone to dramatic ideological change _unless_ the people themselves are readied to make the same change.[3] The renaissances and ideological revolutions of the medieval era were organic. A monarch, or an aspiring agitator, could not have willed them into existence.

**Nonviolence in Fodlan's Political Environment**

Now, let's look at Edelgard's options for peaceful change. First off, diplomacy with Rhea is a nonoption. Rhea is dogmatic, totalitarian, and does not recognize freedom of discourse. Rhea is the only single figure that could bring about change across Fodlan, but she is not in a position where she is willing to listen to a political opposition. Centuries of hegemony warp the mind and it is no wonder that she has a hard time taking any vision but hers seriously, for all other ideologues die without damaging her position. The other lords aren't particularly promising either. Dimitri is highly unstable, even pre-timeskip, prone to blinding emotion during disagreements, and pro-establishment (though not radically so). His refusal to recognize that it is impossible for Edelgard to be behind the tragedy of Duscur is demonstrative. As for Claude, there is no particular advantage to diplomacy. Edelgard considers Rhea her adversary and Dimitri considers Edelgard her enemy. Claude being on Edelgard's side would not move us closer to a Golden Route. Further, his own desire to conquer Fodlan, coupled with his manipulative and secretive nature make him a poor partner for Edelgard. In short, the personalities of Edelgard's counterparts leave me with little trust in the diplomatic process.

It is also reasonable to suppose that Edelgard would be a nonparty to the political scene without a war. Edelgard's rise to power was likely contingent on starting a war. Her main benefactors are House Hevring and House Bergliez, both of which benefit from a war. House Hevring's main source of revenue is mining and its main duty is administration. Thus, their best method for accruing power is land, the primary form of wealth prior to industrialization. More land -> more mines/exploitable resources and more land -> more need for Hevring's administrative role. Wartime also increases demand for mining (stone and ore for armor, weapons, and fortifications) and heightens their influence over domestic policy as competitors shift focus to external affairs. As for House Bergliez, they command the army. They have more power during wartime. They stand to benefit from the boost to attention and prestige. Even if they aren't warhawks in particular, they are unlikely to oppose war on ideological grounds. We do not know Count Bergliez or Count Hevring to be idealistic in any sense (Count Hevring participated in the Insurrection of the Seven, after all). Since they do not care for Edelgard's vision, the war remains as the biggest factor distinguishing her and PM Aegir. For his part, PM Aegir has shown no hawkish inclinations over the course of his rule. Therefore, if Hevring and Bergliez want a war, Edelgard is their only option.

Without the title of Emperor, Edelgard would have little political influence, especially in foreign affairs. Even with the title, nonviolence is especially impotent on the international scale: "Applied to foreign politics, pacifism either stops being pacifist or becomes appeasement."[2] As a puppet or figurehead, Edelgard would have no leverage and no means beyond her own charisma. Rhea and Dimitri, her primary adversaries, are violently unstable - "the assumption, which served Gandhi so well in dealing with individuals, that all human beings are more or less approachable and will respond to a generous gesture, needs to be seriously questioned. It is not necessarily true, for example, when you are dealing with lunatics."[2] Even without the violence, they are still dogmatic and closed off to Edelgard's influence. This all combines to make diplomacy unviable.

**Summary**

Political nonviolence would be an anachronism in FETH.[4] Even in theory, it is out of place. Considering the particulars of Fodlan, the case for nonviolence gets even worse. The promise of a war was probably necessary for Edelgard to retake power in the Empire.

I've written this because <3 Edelgard, but also because it really is important to understand the history, limits, and nature of our ideals. This is a bit personal, but I've been troubled by the rise of ideologues throughout modern society and how they call dogma "idealism" or "faith to their principles." And I think it's something to watch out for/keep in mind.

[1] Prima facie pacifism "presumes that war is wrong but allows for exceptions [and] places the burden of proof upon the proponent of war: it is up to the proponent of war to prove, in a given circumstance, that war is in fact morally necessary" ([Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Pacifism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/#SkepPrimFaciPaci)).

[2] [Reflections on Gandhi, George Orwell, 1949](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/reflections-on-gandhi/)

[3] The Adrestian people seem readier to accept ideological change than the others. For one part, Adrestia seems to suffer from more extreme examples of the abuses that exist throughout Fodlan. For another, the Adrestian people have no common ideology that shores up these abuses. By contrast, Faerghus seems the least ready for change. Even though Faerghus' culture is full of severe abuse, the Faerghus culture shores up these abuses. A normal participant of Faerghus culture (esp. the knightly ideal) is discouraged from criticizing the aristocracy, the religious ideologues, and the dogmatic cultural norms. Faerghus culture is self-preserving and shifts attention from itself: every character from Faerghus (excluding Felix and Jeralt to some degree) criticizes those around them or themselves for their suffering, not the systems, laws, and beliefs that cause suffering. This being the case, Faerghus may well resent many of Edelgard's reforms in Crimson Flower, but reform is more likely to come by conquest than from within. Funnily enough, there is a real-life novel that would be perfect for the people of Faerghus, especially literary folk like Ingrid and Ashe: _Don Quixote_ , or my preferred title, _El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha_ (The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha). _Don Quixote_ was written specifically as a criticism of the chivalric ideal and as a parody of chivalric novels, the same ideal that plagues Faerghus. Miguel de Cervantes' genius would probably strike a chord with many Faerghus readers.

[4] Another anachronistic idea that I see a lot is new players' preference for the Leicester Alliance. They see Adrestia and Faerghus and, based on the fact that monarchy is bad, decide that the Alliance is preferable. Some may even mistake the Leicester Alliance as being close-ish to democracy, which, as moderns, we are supposed to prefer in all circumstances. However, the Alliance is an aristocratic oligarchy, which is one of the worst forms of government. In fact, Plato's Republic goes out and calls it the absolute worst form of government, out of all forms it considers. It inherits almost all the foibles of monarchy and the weaknesses of democracy: indecision, corruption, excessive concentration of power, an elite class formed by blood, etc.


End file.
